sustained EB-1C Case: Automotive Technology

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U. S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.N.W., MS2090
8 Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: DEC 2 'I 20Í2 OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMultinationalExecutiveorManagerPursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(C)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ l l53(b)(1)(C)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Thisisthedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All documentshavebeenreturnedto
theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Any furtherinquirymustbemadetothatoffice.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Thepreferencevisa petitionwasdeniedby the Director,NebraskaServiceCenter. The
matteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Thedecisionof thedirectorwill be
withdrawnandtheappealwill besustained.
Thepetitioneris anOregoncorporationengagedin theproductionandsaleof acomputergearedto optimize
maximumefficiencyof carengines.Thepetitionerseeksto employthebeneficiaryasits generalmanager
chargedwith directingtheoperationof thepetitioningentityby overseeingproductdevelopment,company
finances,personnel,andsalesof thecompany'sproduct.
Accordingly,thepetitionerendeavorstoclassifythebeneficiaryasanemployment-basedinunigrantpursuant
to section203(b)(1)(C)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (the Act), 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(C),asa
multinationalexecutiveor manager.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
beneficiarywouldbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a qualifyingmanagerialor executivecapacity.The
deniedthepetitionin adecisiondatedSeptember8,2011.
On appeal,counseldisputesthe denialandaddressesthe director'sadversefindings. Counselalsooffers
additionalsupportingevidencefurtherestablishingthebeneficiary'sjob responsibilitiesandhis role within
thepetitioner'sorganizationalhierarchy.
Section203(b)of theAct statesin pertinentpart:
(1) PriorityWorkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedinanyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
* * *
(C) CertainMultinational Executivesand Managers.- An alien is describedin this
subparagraphif the alien, in the 3 yearsprecedingthe time of the alien'sapplicationfor
classificationand admissioninto the United Statesunder this subparagraph,has been
employedfor at least1yearby a firm or corporationor otherlegalentityor anaffiliateor
subsidiarythereofandwho seeksto entertheUnitedStatesin orderto continueto render
servicesto the sameemployeror to a subsidiaryor affiliate thereofin a capacitythat is
managerialor executive.
Thelanguageof thestatuteis specificin limiting thisprovisionto only thoseexecutivesandmanagerswho
havepreviouslyworkedfora firm, corporationorotherlegalentity,or anaffiliateor subsidiaryof thatentity,
andwhoarecomingtotheUnitedStatestoworkfor thesameentity,or itsaffiliateor subsidiary.
The statutorydefinitionof "managerialcapacity"allows for both "personnelmanagers"and a "function
managers."Seesection101(a)(44)(A)(i)and(ii) of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(A)(i)and(ii). Personnel
managersarerequiredto primarily superviseandcontrolthe work of othersupervisory,professional,or
managerialemployees.Contraryto thecommonunderstandingof theword "manager,"the statuteplainly
statesthata "first linesupervisoris notconsideredto beactingin a managerialcapacitymerelyby virtueof
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section
101(a)(44)(A)(iv)of theAct; 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(j)(4).If a beneficiarydirectlysupervisesotheremployees,the
Page3
beneficiarymustalsohavetheauthorityto hireandfire thoseemployees,or recommendthoseactions,and
takeotherpersonnelactions. 8C.F.R.§204.5(j)(2).
Thestatutorydefinitionof the term "executivecapacity"focuseson a person'selevatedpositionwithin a
complexorganizationalhierarchy,includingmajorcomponentsor functionsof the organization,andthat
person'sauthorityto directtheorganization.Section101(a)(44)(B)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(44)(B).
Underthestatute,abeneficiarymusthavetheability to "directthemanagement"and"establishthegoalsand
policies"of thatorganization.Inherentto thedefinition,theorganizationmusthavea subordinatelevelof
employeesfor thebeneficiaryto directandthe beneficiarymustprimarily focuson the broadgoalsand
policiesof theorganizationratherthantheday-to-operationsof the enterprise.An individualwill not be
deemedan executiveunderthe statutesimply becausethey havean executivetitle or becausethey "direct" the
enterpriseastheowneror solemanagerialemployee.Thebeneficiarymustalsoexercise"wide latitudein
discretionarydecisionmaking" and receiveonly "generalsupervisionor direction from higher level
executives,theboardof directors,or stockholdersof theorganization."Id.
In thedenial,thedirectorfocusedonthebeneficiary'sjob description,concludingthatthepetitionerprovided
vagueinformation that precludedan affirmative finding that the beneficiarywould primarily perform job
dutiesof a qualifying nature. After conductingits own independentreview of the record,the AAO has
reacheda different conclusion.
While theAAO agreesthatthebeneficiary'sjob descriptionplaysa majorrolein helpingto determinethe
managerialor executivecapacityof a givenposition,thereare otherrelevantfactorsthat mustalso be
considered.TheAAO findsit necessaryto considerthenatureof thebusinesswherethebeneficiarywould
employed,the entity's organizationalhierarchy,thebeneficiary'sposition therein, andthe company'sability to
relievethebeneficiaryfrom havingto primarily performthedaily operationaltasksof thebusiness.
While the director was correct in focusing on the descriptionsof the beneficiary's duties with the U.S. entity,
this elementis but onepart of what shouldbe a comprehensiveanalysiswhereall relevantfactorsare
consideredtogether to determine eligibility. Consideration of the entire record strongly indicates that the
petitioning entity is adequately staffed to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-
qualifyingoperationaltasks.
The AAO finds that the preponderanceof the evidence standard has been met, establishing that the
beneficiarywouldmorelikely thannotbeemployedin theUnitedStatesin a primarilymanagerialcapacity.
Seesection101(a)(44)(A)of theAct.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasmetthatburden.
ORDER: The appealis sustained.